The role of community based service learning courses in the retention of nontraditional students: Comparing results by institutional type and reporting methodological issues
Susan Reed, Associate Professor, DePaul University [sreed@depaul.edu]
Helen Rosenberg, Associate Professor & Faculty Director for Community-based Learning and Research, University of Wisconsin-Parkside [rosenbeh@uwp.edu]
Howard Rosing, Executive Director of the Steans Center for Community-based Service Learning, DePaul University [hrosing@depaul.edu]
Anne Statham, Professor & Director of the Service Learning Program, University of Southern Indiana [aastatham@usi.edu]
Keywords: Nontraditional students, retention, impact of civic engagement
Conference track: Community engagement and student retention, access, and success
Format: Research/Scholarly paper
Summary
Students who participate in community-based service learning (CBSL) projects express a deepened sense of belonging to the community, a better understanding of course content, enhanced interpersonal problem solving skills, and firmer ideas about future career plans (Eyler, Giles, Stenson and Gray, 2001; Schleiter & Statham, 2005). While such data is important to understanding the personal impact of engagement, institutions of higher learning are seeking evidence that this methodology promotes higher academic achievement and retention rates for nontraditional students given predicted increases in that student population (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2009).
Analysis of the NSSE survey finds that students with nontraditional characteristics are less likely to have experienced “high impact practices” such as CBSL (Kuh, Kinzie, Cruce, Shoup and Gonyea, 2006) but those who do may have even stronger benefits than their peers. A Coro Center for Civic Leadership study identified inflexible work schedules and inadequate childcare as the most important perceived obstacles to civic participation, noting that balancing the demands of school, work, home, and civic life can be difficult for today’s nontraditional students (Crowley, 2005)
In this paper, the authors build upon their previous research (Rosenberg, H., Reed, S., Statham, A., & Rosing, H., 2011) to assess the impact of CBSL on nontraditional student retention at three universities in the Midwest. Working with the office of institutional research at each university, data were analyzed to identify students with nontraditional characteristics and compare those who have completed a service learning course with those who have not.
It is important to continue to explore whether the CBSL methodology is achieving the same outcomes we have reason to believe are enjoyed by nontraditional students’ more traditional counterparts. With such information, institutions can design effective programs that target this population so that these students experience college as connected with the communities from which they come and understand the multiple roles they play in that integration.
References
Crowley, G. J. (2005). Nonprofits and civic engagement: Benefits and challenges in building social capital. Pittsburgh, PA: Coro Center for Civic Leadership.
Eyler, J., Giles, D. E. Jr., Stenson, C., & Gray, C. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions, and communities, 1993-2000. Third Edition. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Hodge, G., Lewis, T., Kramer, K., & Hughes, R. (2001). Collaboration for excellence: Engaged scholarship at Collin County Community College. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,25(9), 675–690.
Jacobs, F., & Hundley, S. P. (2010). Understanding and supporting the adult learner: A guide for colleges and universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kasworm, C. E. (2010). Adult learners in a research university: Negotiating undergraduate student identity. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(2), 143 -160.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., & Gonyea, R. M. (2006). Connecting the dots: Multifaceted analysis of the relationships between student engagement results from the NSSE and the institutional policies and conditions that foster student success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Nicpon, M., Huser, L., Blanks, R., Sollenberger, S., Befort, C., & Kurpius, S. (2007). The relationship of loneliness and social support with college freshmen’s academic performance and persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(3), 345–358.
Nora, A., Barlow, L., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment beyond the first year in college. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for success (pp. 129–153). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rosenberg, H., Reed, S., Statham, A., & Rosing, H. (2011). Service learning and the non-traditional student: What’s age got to do with it? In J. A. Hatcher & R. G. Bringle (Eds.), Understanding service learning and community engagement: Crossing boundaries through research (pp. 157–178). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Schleiter, M. K., & Statham, A. (2005). Report on evaluation research center. Kenosha, WI: University of Wisconsin – Parkside Program Evaluation.
The role of community based service learning courses in the retention of nontraditional students: Comparing results by institutional type and reporting methodological issues
Susan Reed, Associate Professor, DePaul University [sreed@depaul.edu]
Helen Rosenberg, Associate Professor & Faculty Director for Community-based Learning and Research, University of Wisconsin-Parkside [rosenbeh@uwp.edu]
Howard Rosing, Executive Director of the Steans Center for Community-based Service Learning, DePaul University [hrosing@depaul.edu]
Anne Statham, Professor & Director of the Service Learning Program, University of Southern Indiana [aastatham@usi.edu]
Keywords: Nontraditional students, retention, impact of civic engagement
Conference track: Community engagement and student retention, access, and success
Format: Research/Scholarly paper
Summary
Students who participate in community-based service learning (CBSL) projects express a deepened sense of belonging to the community, a better understanding of course content, enhanced interpersonal problem solving skills, and firmer ideas about future career plans (Eyler, Giles, Stenson and Gray, 2001; Schleiter & Statham, 2005). While such data is important to understanding the personal impact of engagement, institutions of higher learning are seeking evidence that this methodology promotes higher academic achievement and retention rates for nontraditional students given predicted increases in that student population (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2009).
Analysis of the NSSE survey finds that students with nontraditional characteristics are less likely to have experienced “high impact practices” such as CBSL (Kuh, Kinzie, Cruce, Shoup and Gonyea, 2006) but those who do may have even stronger benefits than their peers. A Coro Center for Civic Leadership study identified inflexible work schedules and inadequate childcare as the most important perceived obstacles to civic participation, noting that balancing the demands of school, work, home, and civic life can be difficult for today’s nontraditional students (Crowley, 2005)
In this paper, the authors build upon their previous research (Rosenberg, H., Reed, S., Statham, A., & Rosing, H., 2011) to assess the impact of CBSL on nontraditional student retention at three universities in the Midwest. Working with the office of institutional research at each university, data were analyzed to identify students with nontraditional characteristics and compare those who have completed a service learning course with those who have not.
It is important to continue to explore whether the CBSL methodology is achieving the same outcomes we have reason to believe are enjoyed by nontraditional students’ more traditional counterparts. With such information, institutions can design effective programs that target this population so that these students experience college as connected with the communities from which they come and understand the multiple roles they play in that integration.
References
Crowley, G. J. (2005). Nonprofits and civic engagement: Benefits and challenges in building social capital. Pittsburgh, PA: Coro Center for Civic Leadership.
Eyler, J., Giles, D. E. Jr., Stenson, C., & Gray, C. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions, and communities, 1993-2000. Third Edition. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Hodge, G., Lewis, T., Kramer, K., & Hughes, R. (2001). Collaboration for excellence: Engaged scholarship at Collin County Community College. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(9), 675–690.
Jacobs, F., & Hundley, S. P. (2010). Understanding and supporting the adult learner: A guide for colleges and universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kasworm, C. E. (2010). Adult learners in a research university: Negotiating undergraduate student identity. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(2), 143 -160.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., & Gonyea, R. M. (2006). Connecting the dots: Multifaceted analysis of the relationships between student engagement results from the NSSE and the institutional policies and conditions that foster student success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Nicpon, M., Huser, L., Blanks, R., Sollenberger, S., Befort, C., & Kurpius, S. (2007). The relationship of loneliness and social support with college freshmen’s academic performance and persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(3), 345–358.
Nora, A., Barlow, L., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment beyond the first year in college. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for success (pp. 129–153). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rosenberg, H., Reed, S., Statham, A., & Rosing, H. (2011). Service learning and the non-traditional student: What’s age got to do with it? In J. A. Hatcher & R. G. Bringle (Eds.), Understanding service learning and community engagement: Crossing boundaries through research (pp. 157–178). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Schleiter, M. K., & Statham, A. (2005). Report on evaluation research center. Kenosha, WI: University of Wisconsin – Parkside Program Evaluation.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Digest of education statistics, 2008. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009020.
To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below: